Remember Judge Judy's comparison. Insults are nasty, handing out personal information is dangerous.

But the question is whether or not there should be limits to speech.

Calling someone autistic is not even a good insult, many autists are high functioning individuals. So, calling someone autistic just shows what a moron the name-caller is.

On the other hand, the reactions toward the usage of the words fag and retard are a bit over the top, in my opinion. I've used those in my circle of friends for over 10 years, and nobody is actually insulted. I agree that they shouldn't be used as offensive insults towards strangers, but I see no harm in them being used jokingly.
There is that Bill Burr bit about the usage of "fag" amongst friends, but I have no clue how to embed YT clips.

There should be limits obviously. Otherwise I would be allowed to leak State secrets. Luckily the limits of free speach are defined by laws and not by peoples feelings. At least not in most places of the Western world. 

Yeah no all I said was "autistic screeching" to mock Sony, and now look at us. At the end of the day, speech should never be limited, but it should be allowed to be challenged like it is right now.
When you limit speech you disagree with, you have a dictatorship. When you challenge speech you disagree with, you got a democracy. I won't stop making jokes, but I won't stop someone who disagree with my jokes. Just disagree and move on. ISN'T THAT THE BEAUTY OF FREE SPEECH. The freedom to be free of discrimination mostly applies in the workplace and for governmental services. Not between people in normal everyday conversations.

The limits have less to do with speech and more to do with physical safety. Doxxing you on a website of people who dislike you is dangerous. Saying you're acting autistic doesn't.

And yes, anyone who displays symptoms of autism, though it specifically refers to Asperger's-style behaviors.

And there are many symptoms of autism, to the point again that it's ambiguous and that it'd just make more sense to use a more specific adjective, unless of course that is the point.

Eh it's the best one I could think of from the top of my head in a second. I don't entirely like it though because it implies eating steak is a manly thing, when it isn't. But I said it anyways, and it works to get the job done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEU-t-ANpdY 

I think of this scene every time someone tries to tone police or trim or cut out language in the name of being less offensive. 

How about this, let's play this game, I find your attempt to language police offensive. So you can either let autistic users on the site be offended (supposedly), or you can offend those of us that care about language and free speech... no matter what you are offending someone. 

Wow so many forum goers suddenly became literature aficionados in the blink of an eye!

This 1984 comparison is getting really over the top, especially when it's just a forum user asking politely not to use certain words. I'm against censorship and I think this entire thread was a bad idea, I personally don't think we should stop using certain words just because a few forum users dislike it, but this is just getting stupid at this point. Curl isn't an authority figure, and until CGI rules what he and the other mods think should be done we could really use less dramatization of this .... I get that events in the real world with heavy handed "political correctness" might loom over the thread and make it seem worse than it is, but making the situation seem worse than it is won't help.